Trichome

thcscience_admin
< June 14 June 16 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closer statement: This was actually a time-consuming AFD to close as each article had to be handled individually. In future bundled nominations, please follow AFD guidelines on formatting additional articles so that closing the discussion takes care of not only the primary article but all other articles included in the nomination. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest[edit]

Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating the following pages, all because of WP:GNG (WP:SIGCOV/WP:ONESOURCE)

Follow-up to:

Except for the websites turkvision.info, turkvizyon.tv etc. of the organisation Turkvision / Turkvizyon itself, or the various broadcasters of the event (WP:PRIMARY), and Anthony Granger of Eurovoix, nobody seems to have been interested in covering these countries' participation in this event. There are a few exceptions in which a third source is invoked, but that's usually not an WP:RS either. Some examples:

  • Gagauzia: govt website Gagauzia.md is invoked for the claim that an incentive of 10,000 Moldovan leu was given to get people to participate. Which is probably true, but the participant in question, Ludmila Tukan, failed to qualify... I'm not impressed.
  • Germany: aufrechtgehn.de/impressum/ is just a WP:SELFPUB blog. I'm not impressed. Turkshow.de / dugun.tv is the German broadcaster of Turkvision, so a WP:PRIMARY source.
  • Khakassia: r-19.ru is the official website of the Government of the Republic of Khakassia. It is only invoked to confirm the name of the song of the 2020 Khakassian contestant, who ended in 11th place... I'm not impressed.
  • Northern Cyprus: kibrisgenctv.com is the local broadcaster of Turkvision, so a WP:PRIMARY source.
  • Poland: eurowizja.org is the website of the Association of Enthusiasts of the Eurovision Song Contest OGAE Polska. This may be a relevant source, it may even be a reliable source, and it is independent of Turkvision. (This is why I hesitated until today, 10 a.m. of 9 June, to include this Poland page in this AfD). But it is invoked only once to support 2 sentences about Polish participation in the 2020 (online) edition of Turkvision, and this is the only time the article Poland in the Turkvision Song Contest invokes any source other than Turkvision.info itself, or other than our great friend Anthony Granger from Eurovoix. What is the result of this whole page? A contestant from Poland tried to participate in the 2016 and 2017 editions (both of which were cancelled), and the only contestant who actually managed to participate in the 2020 edition came in at 18th place. I think this last bit, plus the eurowizja.org ref, can easily be mentioned in Turkvision Song Contest 2020. So the best option in this case may be more of a manual merge than an outright deletion, but there is a large number of stuff in this article that is probably not worth keeping, so I'm still including the page in this AfD.
  • Belarus: qanunpress.com deadlink. This newsoutlet was only established in 2015, the article dates from 12 December 2015, it's a deadlink, and there is no indication of any editorial review or policy other than that the General Director is Vidadi Gozalov. This is the only article in English Wikipedia that ever cites qanunpress.com, it is not mentioned by any other major news media. So I'm gonna count this as an unreliable source, and add Belarus to this AfD (noon 9 June).

From the Russia article, I would include one significant fact into the main article Turkvision Song Contest, namely that the Russian Ministry of Culture banned all Russian regions from competing in the 2015 contest because it was part of the TURKSOY organisation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. As pointed out by the nominator, these articles fail on a number of points, including WP:GNG, WP:SINGLESOURCE and a lack of diverse WP:RS to support the continued hosting of these articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Observation (as nom) Several articles that appear to use more than just Anthony Granger of Eurovoix, Turkvision itself or its broadcasters, or questionable/perennial other sources, appear to be those on Azerbaijan. Indeed, sources with an .az domain name or otherwise written in Azerbaijani are sometimes found in other pages, such as the one on Belarus. This could mean that a single editor has been behind the creation of many if not all of these pages. xtools.wmcloud.org/pages shows, however, that one user created only 8 Turkvision-related pages (5 of which have been deleted so far, including one about Azerbaijan which I nomimated; the remaining 4 are all about Azerbaijan). But they also created lots of Eurovision pages, all except 1 have not been deleted so far. So there is no reason to hold bias against this person (who is actually one of the better editors in the field of song contests), and the pages must have been created by multiple people, even if they all rely pretty heavily on the same type of sources. I haven't included the last 4 pages on Azerbaijan for this reason yet, they might pass WP:GNG. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the future of Turkvision articles At the moment, I think the main articles Turkvision Song Contest, Turkvision Song Contest 2013, Turkvision Song Contest 2014, Turkvision Song Contest 2015, Turkvision Song Contest 2020, and the Azerbaijan articles will pass WP:GNG. The remaining ones (almost all of which I have nominated above) probably do not pass WP:GNG. Any relevant information from the nominated articles may be manually merged into the articles which do pass general notability. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Turkvision's history and future in general It seems to me that the reason why Turkvision has not been able to become a successful recurring event had to do with external factors which neither the organisation nor the broadcasters can probably be held responsible for, as they were beyond their control. As our friend Anthony Granger from Eurovoix reported on 7 December 2015: It has been reported by the press in Tatarstan that all regions of Russia that were due to compete in the 3rd Turkvizyon and 1st Bala Turkvizyon Song Contest have withdrawn from the competition. The withdrawal of Russia’s regions from the contest came after the Ministry of Culture banned Altai Republic, Bashkortostan, Khakassia, Tatarstan, Tuva and the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) from remaining as members of TURKSOY. Granger does not further analyse why this happened, but it seems that this had to do with the fact that Turkey and Russia were on opposing sides in the Syrian civil war since 2015, and political tensions were running high. The International Organization of Turkic Culture (TURKSOY) is based in Ankara, Turkey, and exists to strengthen the ties of brotherhood and solidarity among Turkic peoples (...). Apparently the federal government of Russia no longer wanted any of its constituent republics or regions to participate in organisations or events hosted in Turkey (Turkvision Song Contest 2015 was held in Istanbul, Turkey on 19 December 2015) or primarily organised by Turkey – which it was indirectly at war with – which could potentially make the "Turkic" subjects of the Russian Federation disloyal to "Moscow", or otherwise more loyal to "Ankara". This appears to have been a heavy blow to the potential future of Turkvision. I've read contradictory claims about why the 2016 edition was cancelled; either due to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, or the December 2016 Istanbul bombings. Either way, this combination of political and military instability in Turkey, the wider region and its diplomatic conflicts with countries or regions of countries which would have sent contestants appears to have been behind Turkvision's eventual demise. The only reason why the 2020 edition appears to have been able to go ahead was because it was held online, like so many events during the early Covid-19 pandemic. All subsequent editions have been cancelled again. If this is true, then maybe it wasn't anything the organisers did wrong, but political and military tensions, conflicts and instability beyond their control. Otherwise this might have developed into a successful recurring contest like Eurovision. In that sense it is perhaps a tragedy that it never became as notable and successful, and we're kind of left to clean up the remains of something which never became quite as notable as it could have been. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is not the Eurovision Song Contest, where the per country articles are justified. The show is important enough to carry annual editions. That's already something! In the list above, especially the per country/region AND year articles are way over the top. As for the regular by country or region articles, these summarizing stats will be sufficent. The by country/region list could be extended with zero medals countries. Elsewhere in the Turkvision Song Contest article, the canceled editions can be added to a list, detailing what had been decided by the time of cancellation. Greater point – also for other nominations and editing – is that folks rush to create totally unnecessary SPINOFFs without making sure that all information readers will look for is in the main article. gidonb (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you also agree with my point that the Azerbaijan pages are an exception to this rule, and should be kept? Or have I missed something, and should we consider them for nomination as well? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All Turkvison by country/region articles deserve to be deleted. gidonb (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that all Turkvision country/region articles should be deleted. I do not see why Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest should be an exception, while there are a scattering of other source it is still primarily based on WP:ONESOURCE and should also be considered for deletion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I agree with Nederlandse Leeuw's points. This contest never caught on to the extent where individual country articles would be necessary, and certainly not individual country articles for each edition. There has been a continual lack of reporting on the event by media for years outside of Anthony Granger rewriting information from the contest's site. Grk1011 (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you also agree with my point that the Azerbaijan pages are an exception to this rule, and should be kept? Or have I missed something, and should we consider them for nomination as well? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that 2013, 2014, and 2015 should also be deleted. While there may be additional sources for Azerbaijan in particular, I'm still not convinced that the contest's overall notability warrants this level of detail. I'm also extremely uncomfortable with the "incubation" of the artist and song information. Both are also awkwardly repetitive. The life of the artist is completely irrelevant and is only included because it otherwise does not meet the inclusion criteria for its own page. Grk1011 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. There is something encyclopedic here, but not at that level of WP:FANCRUFT/detail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I would suggest that we should be very selective about which material is worth manually merging into the articles we will be keeping, and the stuff that can go as irrelevant or poorly sourced. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom.  // Timothy :: talk  01:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possibility of redirecting and whether these articles should ALL be considered for deletion or selectively.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Why? The result is clear. I recycled the one reference at Russia in the Turkvision Song Contest I wanted to recycle, so I've got nothing else to salvage. Poland in the Turkvision Song Contest is the only other article I (or anyone else) specifically suggested would be worth manually merging to anything else, but nobody has mentioned Poland ever again. Piotrus and The person who loves reading suggested Redirect/Merge, but did not specify anything in particular to be merged. With 5 Delete All versus 2 Redirect/Merge, the latter two not specifying what should be "Merged" exactly (after I implicitly asked Piotrus to specify what should be 'very selective[ly]' merged, receiving no response), there's nothing to consider for a selective merger. If you like, we can keep the Poland article for now, but I will nominate it again in my next round where I will also include the Azerbaijan articles (as demanded by everyone whom I asked). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. in part due to a deletion rationale that reads more like an opinion that a valid argument for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoenice[edit]

Shoenice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable random youtuber FMSky (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PRJCT18[edit]

PRJCT18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PROD'ed the article without realizing that it had been PROD'ed before (my bad) so this has to go through AfD. My PROD rationale, which still applies, is that this is a fan group that does not meet the notability threshold. Pichpich (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Kugel[edit]

Allison Kugel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I became aware of this article from a post that an IP made at BLPN [3] (that they later deleted). This article has a chequered history, having been created by a sockpuppeteer and has seemingly received a lot of promotional editing, which has since been repeatedly cut down. I'm just not seeing any coverage that passes WP:GNG, including coverage in previous versions of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it's the same person, quite a few mentions of this person that does interviews [4]... For what's in the article, being laid off isn't notable, 9/11 is neither here nor there, employment- and notability-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the interviewer is the same person. She seems to be associated with PR.com. I was not able to find any sigcov of her work as an interviewer, but only mentions in passing. The closest I was able to find was this, but this is in the unreliable NYPOST, so therefore is not usable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prolific interviewer of celebrities, but I find no independent sources about her. She is listed as an author in tons of minor publications, including at least one, Cannabis Today, for which no articles appear. She has self-published a memoir. Lamona (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Entrepreneur source in the article appears to be a contributor piece, which per WP:RS/P should be treated as self-published, and I have also not found independent and reliable coverage to support notability. The Amazon listing for the self-published book also does not appear to list substantial, independent, reliable, and secondary coverage in its "Praise for Journaling Fame" section. The best coverage seems to be a 2016 news.com.au interview that also announces the upcoming book, without substantial independent or secondary content. Beccaynr (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Samolah[edit]

Prince Samolah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brahim Souleymane[edit]

Brahim Souleymane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I was able to find was this 2017 piece on his contract renewal with his club. JTtheOG (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Epeli Saukuru[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ JTtheOG (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Epeli Saukuru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I was able to find this and this, which doesn't seem to be enough. JTtheOG (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - refs added. There are plenty of refs on the Fiji Sun; I've added a few, and its just a matter of picking out the good ones from the usual coverage.--IdiotSavant (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akuressa Maha Vidyalaya[edit]

Akuressa Maha Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Schools need to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. My searches in English and Sinhala didn't yield anything that was clear significant coverage. The best that I could find was Dinamina (translated) but this isn't enough on its own. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nels Jensen[edit]

Nels Jensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I noticed this due to vandalism but failed to see the notability. After doing a google et. al. I still fail to find any reason for notability or how they could pass WP:BIO/WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did a quick Google search and found a bunch of things about other Nels Jensens, and an IMDb page which may have to do with him, but for many reasons that's not a great source. Besides that I couldn't find anything on this specific Nels Jensen that could be used as a source. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke C. Wells[edit]

Brooke C. Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider/WP:USCJN Snickers2686 (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. as additional sources to establish notability have been located and added to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islands of Insight[edit]

Islands of Insight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No meaningful content, no notability, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Not even a release date. Even if it is ever notable, this would be WP:TOOSOON. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The participants here are not altogether clear on their opinions of the articles included in this bundled nomination but I'm interpreting the consensus here as a Keep all. I closed the AFD on Daryush Shokof but you have to be careful if you want to nominate articles for people merely "related" with a person whose article was deleted and evaluate each subject on their own. Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Servants[edit]

Seven Servants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per my reasons on my deletion nomination of Daryush Shokof as well as my deletion nomination of a film made by him, this person and his films aren't notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable subjects related to Shokof:

Venussian Tabutasco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Narges Rashidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sonja Kirchberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iran Zendan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Other related articles have been WP:PROD'd) RteeeeKed💬📖 18:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Iran. RteeeeKed💬📖 18:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Iceland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - are you 100% certain that you want to bundle Anthony Quinn in this nomination? He has had numerous notable roles all documented in Anthony Quinn filmography and has won numerous awards and been nominated for an award at all of the biggest film awards out there including Oscars, BAFTA and Golden Globes. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright then, removing. I'm going to go and WP:PROD the other things I find. RteeeeKed💬📖 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination of Helgi Björnsson, who is probably one of Iceland's more notable musicians in the last decade, indicates to me that no WP:BEFORE was performed which i find extremely troublesome. Alvaldi (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I was in a hurry, and there were a lot of pages I checked. I've removed it from the nomination. RteeeeKed💬📖 20:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Shokof himself has Wikipedia articles in dozen of languages and his German article has several sources, though I haven't been able to review them yet. Was any WP:BEFORE done on any of these nominations? Alvaldi (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if you'd check the two nominations I linked, we didn't find any sources for these. RteeeeKed💬📖 20:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats strange, because the German article already had this SIGCOV for Shokof [8] Alvaldi (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And here is another source that was in the Iran Zendan article and discusses Shokof in detail so now we have multiple sources of SIGCOV on him and a technical WP:GNG pass. Alvaldi (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, Seven Servants passes WP:GNG with coverage such as [9][10][11]. Secondly, any AfD bundle that includes Oscar nominated Anthony Fr**ging Quinn reeks of having no thought behind it and should be trown out. If there is believe after a WP:BEFORE that other subjects are indeed non-notable, then nominated them seperatly. Alvaldi (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not like Quinn won two Oscars or anything remotely notable... Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the page shows, the film was reviewed in Variety and in Der Spiegel. And it is Quinn's last film. His involvement in the film has attracted attention from various media.— MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 22:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Going by the nomination of Anthony Quinn (see Special:Permalink/1160318756), the nominations appear to have been made without even reading the Wikipedia articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hadn't understood the page about Quinn himself had been taken here...... That was quite an unfortunate idea, indeed. For information, I have contested all four ProDs collectively mentioned above (their rationale for deletion was : "related to Daryush Shokof", one of those four pages being the article about Alexandra Stewart... the Alexandra Stewart who played important roles in films by Malle, Godard, Truffaut, Comencini, Chabrol, Lelouch, Scola, etc.; but who was unlucky enough to cross paths with Daryush Shokof and to play in Seven Servants.— MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank) — 15:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not only is this Quinn's last film, but there are several reviews available. Not sure about the other nominations, but to have them bundled with this film seems arbitrary and irrelevant, so Keep on those as well on a procedural basis, with no bias against relisting separately. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep poorly thought out nomination and inclusion criteria which precludes consensus. Suggest withdrawal and, if necessary, a single nomination where BEFORE has been done. Star Mississippi 15:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. The nominator's inclusion of Anthony Quinn in the original nomination doesn't fill me with confidence that a proper assessment has been performed WP:BEFORE making the nomination so I'm not giving this further consideration. Not generally in favour of bundled nominations such as this either as some of the articles might be keep and others delete, redirect or merge. Rupples (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ariunbold Batsaikhan[edit]

Ariunbold Batsaikhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Also tried using his native name. JTtheOG (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Have found [12], [13], which is little bit, and there are number of sources like this, his name mentioned in match reports. Also is this footballer also a chef? There are a couple of interesting results, not sure how much can contribute to GNG. Remains to be seen. Govvy (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Govvy: Well these two sources are simply passing mentions, and do not contribute significantly to GNG. I did see the Utah-based chef in stories like this and this. While it seems interesting, I doubt it's the same person, and even if it was him, I still think it would not satisfy GNG. However, that is why we're at AfD. Cheers. JTtheOG (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @JTtheOG That says goalkeeper... Ariunbold Batsaikhan, so it should be him. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @JTtheOG Comment I think you might be confused with these sources for that matter from the chef and the goalkeeper. That's how it happened. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Aruba international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jelano Cruden[edit]

Jelano Cruden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Register[edit]

Dead Register (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing anything that allows the band to pass WP:NMUSIC let alone WP:GNG - RichT|C|E-Mail 17:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha TTR225[edit]

Yamaha TTR225 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN motorcycle - fails WP:PRODUCT UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leandros Lillis[edit]

Leandros Lillis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A thorough WP:BEFORE was carried out in Greek, revealing the following sources:

  • A transfer announcement by Omonia, coverage not going beyond the routine announcement
  • A similar announcement for Ermis Aradippou
  • An article in Sigmalive about him being considered for transfer to Bayern, purely speculative article with no depth
  • A two sentence article in Phileleftheros about him being involved in the national youth team.
  • A further article on his college football performance merely mentions him by name [14]

I also note the link to an interview in the article, which is now sadly dead. I do not think that this would change the outcome of my assessment though.

As such the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT due to the lack of significant coverage about the subject. GGT (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. GGT (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I checked to see if he had any WP:SIGCOV in English due to his college career but couldn't find anything decent. Searches in Greek brought nothing better than what the nominator has already presented. Sadly, a lot of these Cypriot news sources just copy and paste from the club press releases so the transfer announcements very rarely have any worthwhile independent content, even for players like Lillis, who have played a lot of times at the professional level. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lenos Georgiou[edit]

Lenos Georgiou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thorough searches in Greek and English have yielded no sources that provide significant coverage of this footballer. Therefore the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. GGT (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Mainwal[edit]

Gina Mainwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN musician - fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, and for me, too, regrettably. Searched using English and German phrases, but between really minor references to her as drummer and director (for music videos, too, e. g. Tacocat), I don't think together it would all pass the threshold. Then again, maybe someone who is more experienced than me would make the call that it does. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Muhammed (entrepreneur)[edit]

Musa Muhammed (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam sources, we really need to blacklist some of these. 17 year old Nigerian "internet entrepreneur" who is famous enough to be featured in Bangladesh[15] with his company "Sam Marketer", which according to their own website "Sam Marketer provides top-notch digital marketing services, including Wikipedia article creation"[16] where they also claim to have worked for Real Madrid! No evidence of this can be found, of course. Typical use of "articles" in "newspapers" where you just pay to get a profile online, making it look as if you are really successful. Nothing reliable could be found to establish that they have received any independent attention. Fram (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't this are fake according to interview by Vanguard [17] Their company were new company maybe before he start "Sam Marketer" he have been working for Real Madrid and according to their online presence they have independent sourcessorting/Technology|Technology]], and Nigeria. Sammarkk (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you, Sammarkk, pretend not to be associated with Sam Marketer? Or should I say User:Ishola0? Instead of an AfD, this page should be G4 deleted and salted, see Draft:Musa Muhammed Olayinka and Musa Muhammed Olayinka. Fram (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am new here so I just choose topic and I see it already deleted page that's I change the name and you can that I have contribute to many articles Sammarkk (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. These paid articles to serve as refs for 'entrepreneurs' are a problem across Nigerian Wikipedia, I've nominated half a dozen of them in the last couple days. Nswix (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Not notable, largely PROMO and iffy sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy and salt. I agree with Fram, we need to start blacklisting some of these seemingly legit sources that are happy to run any promo story for clicks; otherwise this will sooner or later make a complete mockery of our notability standards. (And I note with some despair that Indian media are now exporting their churnalism services abroad. Oh great.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe we should have a new CSD criteria for founders, CEOs and entrepreneurs who are in high school or even junior high school. I saw an article about a 13 year old "industrialist" recently. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should have a CSD for articles made up of nothing but these paid promotional articles. They're easy enough to spot and so many BLPs that get deleted are full of them. Nswix (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rewrite There's significant coverage about the article, while the article might not pass WP:NPOV and might be non disclosure of payment, this article should be cleaned up and rewrite, it may be move to the draft space, but shouldn't be deleted Lolafam (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - see Vanguard (Nigeria) and The Guardian (Nigeria). These are major national newspapers in Nigeria. The subject clearly meets the notability requirements. I don't find the content of the newspaper articles very compelling but that's true of 100,000's of Wikipedia articles on North American topics and their North American references. The writing style of the newspaper articles is a bit florid but if you read the Nigerian press, that's typical. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly a scam page. An entrepreneur who dropped out of university and started a company which is now doing so well hes had multiple articles published about him, by 17 years old?
    Those publications might not be as trustworthy as you think if they're writing about fluff pieces about teenage 'entrepreneurs'. Nswix (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's no shortage in North America of people who're famous for being famous. As I said, I'm personally not very interested in this person; should this person be notable -- I don't think so. I'd delete about 20% of our articles if it were up to me to decide based on what should be notable. But that's not the basis of our notability requirements. Like it or not, this kid's in the national news.
    I go by what is notable and that will be the closing admin's approach, too.
    Those newspapers are the national newspapers I read while in Nigeria. Their tone is distinctly Nigerian.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These articles are paid for crapvertising, and these newspapers should be blacklisted, as we clearly can´t trust them to post articles based on objective newsworthiness or truthfulness. We shouldn´t tolerate such practices to govern Wikipedia content even if these are the main newspapers of a large country. The claims in the article can not be matched to anything in reality, just like the claims on the company website (Real Madrid???) are completely imaginary. The "article" in the Bengali newspaper just gives more evidence of the intent behind and the reason for these articles, paid for promotion. Fram (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete based on this comment by User:JoelleJay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji. It cites a journalism expert discussing rampant Nigerian journalism corruption. (That said, the Nigerian reporting style during my short time there was florid even when reporting stuff like the weather.) --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject clearly lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Both the Vanguard and The Guardian sources are promotional pieces meant to give the subject an internet presence.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for Deletion: I think, this article is not notable. I do not know if it is right to say this! A person with this name forced me to create this article on Social Media! I declined the offer to make this article because I didn't find it noteworthy! Maybe he paid someone else or he could create this article himself! ≈ Farhan  «Talk» 08:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:Sigcov and WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. Wayne Mitchell[edit]

D. Wayne Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT. UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for what appears to be a local theater person, nothing of note. Long way from Broadway. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Business Magazine[edit]

Vermont Business Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails wp:GNG. Only found passing mentions in my WP:BEFORE search Carpimaps talk to me! 13:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatuntele Tunde[edit]

Fatuntele Tunde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another "entrepreneur" article whose sources are mostly paid promotional pieces. Does not meet WP:IS. Nswix (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Nswix (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete He creates social media accounts for companies? That's not notable, rather routine these days. Sourcing is promotional. Nothing to differentiate him from anyone else in his position. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DeletePer nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Extensively sourced to multiple major Nigerian papers of record, with absolutely no evidence presented that the sources are paid journalism. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article and sources, fails GNG. Avilich (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo Ajudua[edit]

Bobo Ajudua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another "entrepreneur" article whose sources are mostly paid promotional pieces. Does not meet WP:IS. Nswix (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Nswix (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete This individual has coverage, but it all appears to be routine (closing a certain business deal). He's a practicing lawyer, but nothing beyond that. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Per nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sourced to major Nigerian papers of record. Zero evidence presented that these sources are paid journalism. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article and sources, fails GNG. Avilich (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Omoraro[edit]

AfDs for this article:
George Omoraro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another "entrepreneur" article whose sources are mostly paid promotional pieces. Does not meet WP:IS. Nswix (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Nswix (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete More promo puff pieces and advertorials as sourcing, from Nigeria. Getting an award from a church isn't notable, offering advice to the younger folks neither... This is getting to be a chronic problem on wiki, just based on the amount of these we see in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does the fact that it comes , from Nigeria. make it less usable? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Zero evidence presented that the sources in question are paid. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional sourcing and article. Avilich (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Bone (disambiguation)[edit]

Monkey Bone (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unneeded disambiguation page; can be handled just using hatnotes. {{one other topic}} was added 4 months ago, and no entries have been added to the page since – the only thing that seems like a potential new entry would be the literal bone of a monkey, but Monkey doesn't go into the skeletal structures of monkeys, and I don't know where else on Wikipedia that information would be, so there's no article to link to. A previous entry of "a monkey's bone" was refactored into the lede in 2009, before being removed when the {{one other topic}} template was added. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though unlike previous poster, I'd leave Monkey Bone redirecting to the record company, while Monkeybone is the film; hatnotes are already in place at both targets. PamD 07:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. This is a different article that the version that was nominated for deletion so I'm going to weigh the opinions of editors who evaluated the expanded article more heavily and close this discussion as a Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Pratidin[edit]

Bangladesh Pratidin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage WP:SIG; Doesn't meet WP:GNG; Considerd WP:BEFORE M.parvage (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I considered WP:BEFORE; But I encourage contributors to do a search on it before giving an opinion. I also did a source analysis.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Source 1 No Own website; see WP:IIS ? No doesn't matter ✘ No
Source 2 No Own website ? No self promotion ✘ No
Source 3 No Not at all Yes No content is just about a refernece ✘ No
Source 4 No promotional content Yes No No significant coverage, WP:SIGCOV; Just a PR content ✘ No
Source 5 No No No not pointing the subject in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No
Source 6 No About an employee not the organization ? No ✘ No
Source 7 No No mention ? No No mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

M.parvage (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Table above shows that WP:GNG has not been met. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the source table, there is nothing showing notability, or even using RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The largest circulated newspaper by print sales is the type of article we should have in an encyclopedia. It has been the best-selling newspaper in Bangladesh, a country of over 160 million people, for the last ten years; if that does not suggest notability, then I do not what does. The article is in bad shape, but it can be improved. The Daily Star is a rival publication and the article on Bangladesh Pratidin mentions it is the most circulated newspaper based on the government database while the Daily Star's sister concern, Prothom Alo, comes second; this cannot be considered promotional.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Best selling is not a notable thing.please read WP:IIS and see the examples also. Thanks M.parvage (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals), Bangladesh Pratidin is a newspaper of record in Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NPERIODICAL,
1. The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area: But it is not.
2. The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level: but it is not
3. The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Unfortunately it is not
4. The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works: But it is not
None of it's source represent those. M.parvage (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has been expanded since its nomination, with sources quadrupled.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extensive article expansion and many sources added by @Vinegarymass911 - WP:Hey does apply. Note here that the significant expansion has shown the veritable lack of WP:before undertaken by the nominator. Also see WP:NMEDIA#2 have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history: a fair interpretation of significant history is being the most popular print newspaper in a major nation over a sustained period (and this is verified by WP:RS in the article). ResonantDistortion 12:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was expanded and now it is enough to keep. Mehedi Abedin 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is now enough to keep.≈ Farhan  «Talk» 09:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitra Rafee[edit]

Mitra Rafee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N, the references are not reliable. And some I checked, they actually don't mention her at all. Ladsgroupoverleg 09:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references did not mention this actor's name for the award and the references that announced the list of awards are unofficial and non-independent advertising sites. Appears to be written in a PROMO style, not notable anyways please check the references . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.77.75 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This looks like a promo created by an WP:SPA, but I couldn't verify Farsi sources. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep because those advocating Keep are talking about sources establishing notability while those arguing for Delete are basically stating that he is too young to deserve an article which is a form of I don't like it. If I had voted in this discussion instead of closed it, I would have voiced support for a Redirect but as I see it, the consensus today is to Keep this article. Any rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Maximus James[edit]

Bryce Maximus James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marked for speedy deletion under category A10 as previous article, simply titled Bryce James is a redirect to his father LeBron James.

If the editor that redirected that article, there is no reason IMHO that is worthy or recreating the article under another name. It is simply a way to get around an edit they don’t like. BostonMensa (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce James BostonMensa (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was redirected to LeBron James from 2022 until Today when the redirect was changed. There are people that are very determined. BostonMensa (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did a WP:BEFORE indicate if there was any WP:SIGCOV on the subject? Alvaldi (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage is typical of this [18]. The kid is 15 yrs old, he likely won't be notable until at least college, other than having a famous father, that's about all there is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article from The Sporting News is a secondary source that is independent of the subject, addresses it directly and in detail and is as far as I know from a reliable publication. That is, it is significant coverage. That said, GNG requires multiple SIGCOV over a sufficiently significant period of time which might be difficult for him to pass since coverage about him seems to have started around the second half of last year. As it stands, the best course of action would probably be to move the article to Bryce James (common name) and then redirect it to his father to preserve the article history since there is every indication that he will soon be notable enough to have an article. Plus, redirects are WP:CHEAP. Alvaldi (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be ok with a !redirect, either way, not terribly fussed about either option. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is several years ahead of potential notability besides him being the son of a famous basketball player and potential college player. conman33 (. . .talk) 00:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I’d have to reread the article but IIRC, he hasn’t had a particularly notable high school basketball career and notability is not inherited. BostonMensa (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - no reason not to. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't know what you all are basing your not notable opinions on but I see significant coverage in independent sources cited in the article and I get many other hits in a news search. If the media is interested, the subject is notable. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The most impressive things I see are his Scholarship and his father. I don’t see anything along the lines of when he was a sophomore, he became his school’s highest scorer, he was the MVP of the state championship tourney and the third leading scorer or rebounder. What is mentioned, like the scholarship offer, is no different than thousands of other athletes. BostonMensa (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please specify what makes you think he is more notable than the high school athletes closest to where you live. BostonMensa (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is more notable than other local high school athletes because he's being reported on by multiple reliable sources. Sure, not necessarily because of his accomplishments but WP:GNG doesn't care about that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems flimsy argument at best. What I see here is he getting this attention because who is father is and I lost track of how many times people have said notability is not inherited. As far as I am concerned, it is about what he has accomplished, in this case on the basketball court and not the luck of the cosmic drawer on who his father is. I don’t see basketball accomplishments that make him as or more notable than his peers. 23:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC) BostonMensa (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to disagree that he's received media attention. Sorry you don't like WP:BASIC. WP:INHERIT is about subjects that have not received their own coverage but are associated (e.g. by marriage, birth, etc.) with a notable subject. It certainly does not say that someone associated with a notable subject can't be notable. ~Kvng (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The media being interested is meaningless re:being notable. On slow news days or if the News program has 45 seconds to fill, they will cover a double rainbow cross town. Doesn’t mean it is wikiworthy. BostonMensa (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The double rainbow only gets coverage for a brief period of time. If the same double rainbow persisted for years and got coverage over that period, that would make it notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was hoping we'd turn up other sources at this point. Still a !delete, with a smaller !vote for ~redirect if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the !vote for redirect is smaller than for delete. There is information about him in the LeBron James article and this is a plausible search term. So even if there is reason not to have a standalone article, I see no reason not to have a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- He looks good to pass WP:GNG, I found this sources [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]Epcc12345 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as he has received sustained significant coverage in many outlets. The reason why he's receiving coverage is not relevant to notability. However, I wouldn't object if the content was merged to LeBron James. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources presented by Epcc12345. More than enough to satisfy GNG. I would suggest a move to Bryce James also but this is not the correct venue. Carson Wentz (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too Soon to establish independent notability. He is 16. He has not done anything notable yet outside of being born to famous people. Trillfendi (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Gwalior gharana. Viable ATD in lieu of sufficient sourcing. Star Mississippi 14:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izat Fateh Ali Khan[edit]

Izat Fateh Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails MUSICBIO and BLP. No in-depth coverage, multiple sources failed verification. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Coverage from the Daily Times is in-depth but that’s about it; the other sources are lacking. 116.92.232.6 (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one has discussed the failed verification part of the nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source [27] does not contain information about Izat Ali Fateh Khan’s place and date of birth. The third source [28] does not verify that Izat Fateh Ali Khan is the son of Ustad Fateh Ali Khan. The subject is not mentioned in the fourth [29], fifth [30], and eleventh [31] sources. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If some cited sources fail to verify any stated fact in the article or do not mention the subject, we simply remove the sources. This is no reason to delete the whole article. Insight 3 (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all these badrefs, the article is left with few reliable sources (the Dawn articles being mostly trivial and the two nearly-identical Daily Times articles) with no other significant coverage. The article claims that Izat Ali Fateh Khan has performed on television, radio, and “has appeared in several programs numerous times”, which is not supported by the source listed. Claims of notability (particularly the claim that the subject has been featured on television, presumably national television) lack verifiability, hence failing notability guidelines. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Gwalior gharana where mentioned. The subject is clearly part of a dynastic musical tradition that collectively receives significant coverage, but the available sources provide little to no significant coverage of young Izat. signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No Award, not any notable contribution, can't satisfy WP:GNG, Fast deletion recommended.PARVAGE talk! 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CDA Public School and College[edit]

CDA Public School and College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. All sources seem to be either too short, passing mentions or related to the subject. I couldn't find any suitable sources for the article. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mesourouni[edit]

Andrew Mesourouni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find WP:SIGCOV about this player. And most of the sources are football related not independent. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Ruben[edit]

Jacky Ruben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tiny bit of coverage here [32], that's about all I can find. For lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Hockey Victoria. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melton Hockey Club[edit]

Melton Hockey Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the coverage I could find is local and thus does not meet WP:AUD and fails WP:ORG. The club does not play in the top tier competition in Australia which is Hockey One. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of chairmen of the State Council of the Republic of Adygea[edit]

List of chairmen of the State Council of the Republic of Adygea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list containing zero extant Wikipedia pages meets WP:G14, because G14 also applies to pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists). The criteria for lists is irrelevant to notability of politicians. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Amazing Facts. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Bay Hilltop Seventh-day Adventist Church[edit]

Granite Bay Hilltop Seventh-day Adventist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Granite Bay Hilltop Seventh-day Adventist Church does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:LOCAL. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and California. Shellwood (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that the creator claims on their user page at User:Lets.Custodio to have been WP:PAID to write the article. This should have gone through AFC rather than being created in mainspace. Belbury (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this page no longer needs to be deleted, as in agreement with the client (who paid me to make general contributions to wikipedia, without asking me specifically which page I should contribute to), I will deliver another contribution in its place. This makes the contribution to the Granite Bay Hilltop Seventh-day Adventist Church page an unpaid contribution. For this reason, I removed the paid contribution specification from my profile. Lets.Custodio (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you cannot retroactively declare paid editing to no longer be paid. If the client said "make me 12 Wikipedia articles" and you initially created this article as one of those, going on to say "actually, I'm no longer counting this as one of the 12, which means it isn't paid" is nonsense. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine coverage, non-notable structure not listed in the NRHP. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to Amazing Facts. The church, in and of itself, fails specific and general notability criteria. It's not an unreasonable redirect term to Amazing Facts, but there's no need for a standalone article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to Amazing Facts per C.Fred. This is one of a series of paid content additions involving some sort of ChatGPT experiment. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lets.Custodio making paid/ChatGPT edits (permalink). Also note that Commons is discussing deletion of the images as copyvios.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW combined with previous AfD also being a keep. Also recommended that nominating editor read up on WP:BLUDGEON‎. SouthernNights (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allan R. Bomhard[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Allan R. Bomhard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been nominated twice before for WP:NBIO issues, and both previous AfD noms failed to notice that while he has a degree of prominence among Nostraticists, that is itself a fringe theory well outside the mainstream academic consensus. While he has managed to get two books published by reputable sources, he himself mostly appears to self-publish for a community of adherents to the fringe theory and his work is not treated seriously by mainstream linguists. He is a notable figure in a fringe movement, not an academic field. This is important considering his work is entirely focused on that academic field. I don't believe he meets WP:FRINGEBLP considering he is mainly self-publishing to an already bought in audience. Warrenmck (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. An academic being wrong is not in itself a reason to delete an article, and Wikipedioa having an article on a controversial academic is not an endorsement of the academic or his beliefs. I would encourage people to read the previous deletion discussions to see why the article was kept before, as well as the now-removed claims (plausible not unverified) made in previous versions of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the person in question has never been, as far as any record exists, an academic. This is akin to a hobby physicist self-publishing theories which run counter to the understanding of physics for most of their career, minus two books which were published to zero acceptance. That’s actually my main point of contention with the previous AfDs and why I raised it again, this isn’t a “wrong academic”, it’s a fringe theorist. Altaic languages has a fair number of good examples of academic linguists who are considered wrong by their peers, but they absolutely have a place there. Bomhard does not. Warrenmck (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Language. TJMSmith (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. Recognized as an independent scholar and as a proponent of the controversial Nostratic theory. Enough published book reviews for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of his works are self published and he is not recognized as an independent scholar in the field. I implore people voting keep to verify these claims using non Wikipedia sources, since the content on Wikipedia was certainly heavily contributed by adherents to his fringe theory. Nostratic is controversial in the same way a young earth is at this juncture: it is completely rejected by the field and only presently explored under the guise of, effectively, pseudoscience.
    I don’t know if there is a mechanism to invoke the perspectives of more people from the Linguistics Wikiproject. I don’t want to come across as either trying to canvas votes or meat-puppet but there seems to be a deep and fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of his work and acceptance in the field of linguistics. Most of his web presence is on Wikipedia itself and his notability seems to exclusively derive from how much he has been cited on Wikipedia by a fringe movement; he is neither an academic nor a credible scholar in the field. There are practically no off-wiki sources beyond a book review, and again, an overwhelming amount of his work is self published. Contrast this with Soviet Nostraticisits who are/were prominent in their field while holding a minority opinion but seriously publishing their work. Warrenmck (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you misunderstood my use of the word "published". Although your claim that his books are self-published appears to be false (some but not all of them are), it is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that the reviews of his books, by other people, are reliably published. Therefore, they provide plenty of content on Bomhard's work that we can use to describe that work in an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve tried to be clear that not all of his books are self published and have regularly said “except a few”, to be fair. But the reviews of his books by other people don’t inherently meet the standard for notability, especially given those represent the entire corpus of references to the author in the field. Your claim that he is a “recognized independent scholar” is still not really backed up by any of the references. A book review does not recognition or endorsement make. Warrenmck (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, multiple published book reviews are exactly the criteria we use to judge whether we have in-depth published independent coverage of a book author, exactly what notability under WP:GNG constitutes. Your use of the words "recognition" and "endorsement" indicate further misunderstanding. A Wikipedia article on a scholar is not an endorsement of their work. It is a neutral summary of their work and life. Your attempts to push an editorial perspective on our article, insisting that he is "fringe" based on a source that merely criticizes his work as inaccurate (a different thing), suggests that you are not taking the appropriately neutral approach to this subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nostratic theory is considered a fringe theory in linguistics. To that effect I have asked the Linguistics Wikiproject to weigh in on this, but per our discussion on my talk page (and just to repeat it here):
    As the Nostratic affinity is in itself a fringe theory based on near-zero evidence, such speculation hardly lends credence to the model.
    (Turning Puns into Names and Vice Versa, Lillo, 2007)
    I am not presenting an editorialized point of view. I am presenting scholarly consensus on the status of Nostratic. It was a valid historical proposal and greater evidence and our improved understanding of the comparative method post-1960 ended most of the discussion of Nostratic. At present it is exclusviely the domain of adherents to it who take macrofamily proposals as a given and fall well outside the mainstream of academic consensus, and again I would overwhelmingly prefer other linguists chime in than just leaving me trying to explain that attempting to strike a "neutral" tone as you read it here runs against scholarly consensus and falls into WP:UNDUE territory. It necessitates elevating fringe linguists who are predominantly self publishing to the standing of academic linguists who have decades ago moved on from Nostratic.
    At present scholarly consensus is that the top level identified proto-languages (discussed in List of proto-languages) are genetically wholly unrelated, with a single possible exception. I would hope that my edits on linguists who advocate for Nostratic would make it clear that I'm not here to editorialize. My primary concern is first and foremost making sure that the information presented on Wikipedia is not editorialized in favour of a specific viewpoint, in fact. Warrenmck (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:AUTHOR based on multiple reviews of multiple works. TJMSmith (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)
    How is this standard met? He published books, to be certain, but they are in no way well known or significant, and a majority of the reviews in question are pointing out the fringe nature of the theory.
    I’m not trying to change everyone’s minds here, I do worry that people unfamiliar with the field are taking it for granted that he is an academic from that field due to the academic press nature of two of his books. Bomhard has been consistently misrepresented on both Wikipedia articles and previous AfDs as a “controversial academic” when he is neither particularly controversial (as a nonentity espousing a fringe theory) nor an academic, despite the claims of the infobox on his article. It is certainly not impossible to have a fringe linguistics theory published by an academic press, but the standard for WP:NFRINGE should be higher here, and these articles are doing readers of Wikipedia a huge disservice by elevating an irrelevant figure who, to be clear, defined their entire career by self-publishing pseudoscience with three exceptions.
    I am not asking people to take my word for it, but please consider verifying the claims I’m making here if you’re going to make the claim that he is a “controversial academic”. Were his article to remain, for the sake of accuracy it would need to be reworked to discuss his role as a pseudolonguist rather than an academic, and none of his books would meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion as a source in any article other than his own. The article would necessarily be an orphan, as we don’t tend to include quack physicists in articles on physics and while Nostratic has had historical proponents and may warrant its article, it is one of historical interest. We don’t elevate the voices of alternate theories for our understanding of physics on those pages, though the historical understandings are certainly mentioned and of interest. But this isn’t a case of historical understandings or contributions, this is someone who used pseudoscience to continue developing an abandoned theory long after it was abandoned by scholarly consensus, which many of the reviews in question point out. Warrenmck (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- I've seen an article by him in what appeared to be a reputable scholarly journal (published before the rise of the Internet). Benjamin Whorf was basically an independent scholar without much in the way of formal academic credentials. Also, I don't see why believing in Nostratic means that your article should be deleted -- the article of Aharon Dolgopolsky, a rather widely-known scholar, should certainly not be deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Worf was publishing in an era where linguistics was much more defined by informal research, and pointedly he didn't spend decades publishing theories that ran counter to the academic consensus in the lack of evidence (indeed, his theories were influential in part because of the testability of his hypotheses). Keep in mind that there are plenty of high-quality articles about Nostraticists on Wikipedia (see: Sergei Starostin), they're just predominantly academics who continued working on the idea rather than people who were branching off saying all the other Nostratcisists were wrong and putting forward their own alternative to zero fanfare decades after scholarly consensus had moved on. I think this is more akin to someone continuing to work on homeopathy post the water memory paper being discredited. A fair and proper treatment of the Bomhard article would result in it being an orphaned stub, which it's increasingly converging on in the time since this AfD was posted as others work on cleaning the article. Warrenmck (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mati[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since the last AfD we're now a lot stricter on schools with no inherent notability. Only primary sources provided and this one fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to WFFT-TV. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy's Place[edit]

Happy's Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable only on local level. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to or merge into parent station, WFFT-TV. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually am slightly less gung-ho on a merge than on most articles of this kind because I've found some surprising SIGCOV in the Fort Wayne media, including after the show's run ended around 1998. The papers are in NewsBank, but several long articles were written on Happy's Place. There is also some SIGCOV on the first host, Mike L. Fry, mostly because his business career selling cookies led to a fair number of features. There are three long articles with significant info on the show and there is also a specific mention in Broadcasting & Cable magazine in 1998; the article notes that the format inspired a show on WAMI-TV in Miami! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "HAPPYness \ - Happy the Hobo's the name. Nothing else - simply Happy, OK? That's how the grease-whiskered clown wants it. He know his "Place."", The News-Sentinel July 30, 1987
    • "CLOWN ABOUT TOWN HAPPY THE HOBO MAY NOT BE A BOZO, BUT THE HOST OF WFFT 'S `HAPPY'S PLACE' HAS NO PROBLEM MAKING CHILDREN LAUGH", The Journal Gazette January 23, 1997 p. 10D
    • "No clowning around - 'Happy's Place,' a children's show that aired on WFFT, really was a happy place", The News-Sentinel October 23, 2002 p. 1F
      • For 15 years Happy's Place was an after-school standard in Fort Wayne and the surrounding areas. The locally produced children's show, which aired weekdays on WFFT, Channel 55, boasted an audience of thousands, a two-year wait for tickets and a host - Happy the Hobo - who gave a generation of kids its first glimpse at bulging biceps. But after nearly two decades on the air, Happy the Hobo and his sidekick Froggy... disappeared.
    • "All local, most of the time", Broadcasting & Cable January 19, 1998
      • It's not a new idea, [Adam] Ware acknowledges, but one that must be tailored to appeal to local viewers. He cites the example of a kids block created by WFFT-TV Fort Wayne, Ind., several years ago. Called Happy's Place, it combined Disney Afternoon cartoons with local segments hosted by a local Bozo-type character. "But in the Nielsen book it was Happy's Place. You never saw Duck Tales, and it was gigantic. They owned kids" and the transition show that followed.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems to have some coverage as above, a selective merge with a paragraph in the article for the station should suffice. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ingvaldson[edit]

Christopher Ingvaldson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a criminal without clear evidence of passing WP:PERP. This is a low-profile person who does not clearly pass either the ten year test for enduring significance, or the standards at PERP for when an article about a criminal is actually warranted.
Instead, the article started out as a poorly sourced sports BLP on the basis of his previously having played field hockey at a level that might possibly have passed the sports notability standards of 2006 but certainly doesn't pass the sports notability standards of 2023, and then by 2009 it featured such sparkling prose as "Ingvaldson is also locally known as the only teacher at St.Georges who can rip a phonebook in half(if he was spazzing) and survive an argument with Mr.Jamieson" (unsourced, natch) — the crime issue came along only in 2010, four years after the article was created, and the article most likely would never have even existed at all (or would have been shitcanned by AFD if it had been newly created) on the basis of the crime alone. There's an additional BLP sensitivity here, because he once tangentially happened to briefly share the same employer as a prominent Canadian politician a full decade before the crime, and IP editors have attempted to inflate that minor fact into the explosive implication that the politician shares direct personal culpability in the subject's crime.
This person simply is not significant enough to warrant the amount of monitoring this requires. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Horrible crime, but simply a routine crime of this type with no long-term legal effects or changing of anything really. Found guilty, did his time. Almost a revenge page at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable for either the crime or their hockey career. Being a room mate and friend of Trudeau isn't useful either as notability is not inherited. Canterbury Tail talk 18:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This almost appears to be some attempt to smear Justin Trudeau, as it really has no importance in relation to the person; pure conjecture, but there are a certain set of individuals on social medial that think Trudeau is some sort of WW2-era German person. Which I can't type because of the firewall at work... "I lived with a guy once, and he's famous now but wasn't then" doesn't really add to notability, maybe an interesting tidbit. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree it’s delete for all the reasons stated above. This looks like a very easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously, it's all out of proportion. And the attachment to Trudeau certainly raises a lot of questions. Suitskvarts (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Although there is disagreement on the value of recently found sources, I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Koehnline[edit]

James Koehnline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not many reliable sources that discuss James Koehnline in detail. Even the cited sources barely discuss him at all. I found some passing references and citations to his work, but that is not enough to write a full article on the man. Furthermore, quite a bit of the found content was published by obscure publishers or was self-published. Since Koehnline is still alive, we have to be particularly careful about this type of thing. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Politics. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found at least one reliable source with in-depth coverage of James Koehnline: "An Infinite Bag of Tricks," Abstract: This installment looks at the work of James Koehnline, who creates art based on digital imagery. Published in: IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications ( Volume: 31, Issue: 2, March-April 2011) Page(s): 4 - 5. Also, I am finding some writing about Koehnline in Fifth Estate (periodical), along with what looks like 20+ Koehnline collages. And it looks like the book Koehnline coedited, "Gone to Croatan: Origins of North American Dropout Culture," is reviewed by at least one reliable source, and cited by several others. I'd be happy to work on adding these sources to the article and cutting anything that isn't reliably sourced. Elspea756 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO of a working graphic artist. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In its current state, I don't see any reason for keeping. First source (Black 1994, p. 92) only mentions him in a laundry list of "mileu collagists", none of whom have their own Wikipedia articles. Second source (Miller 1999, p. 287) mentions a book he co-edited in a footnote, but the actual reference is to an essay within that book by Miller himself. External links are to Koehnline's own website, an obscure dead web page that includes a couple of his works, and an interview with Koehnline that I assume is what the rest of this article is pulling from. So the only source that goes into any substantial detail about him is a primary source and it's not even cited inline. I'd be open to changing my vote to "Keep" if Elspea756 can put together a better article with the sources they found. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WomenArtistUpdates and Grnrchst: Update Just to update here as I'm going through these sources: There are at least 28 issues of the Fifth Estate (periodical) that I had thought, based on the first few I looked at, that they each might have multiple Koehnline collages in them. For example, there are two collages including the cover in Spring 1990 issue, three in the Autumn 1992 issue, four including the cover in the Spring 1991 issue, and the front and back covers in the Fall 2006 issue. At least one of the 28 issues, Vol. 42, No. 2(376) (Oct., 2007), has some writing about Koehnline's work that is longer than a brief mention, but it is still only about four paragraphs in an essay on a broader topic. However, maybe around a third of these 28 issues just have a small ad for the "Gone to Croatan" book, edited by Koehnline and containing an essay by Koehnline, available along with over a dozen other books at the Fifth Estate bookstore. The one review I mentioned is in The Whole Earth Review, 1994 (83), p.40, which I haven't been able to track down a copy of yet. The best source still looks like the two-page article "An Infinite Bag of Tricks" in IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications in 2011, but that was written in conjunction with a Koehnline collage on the cover, and has several quotes from Koehnline, so is largely based on interviews, which are maybe too much of a primary source for Grnrchst. And I'm not sure that "15+ year contributor to notable anarchist/underground publications" reaches the "substantial part of a significant exhibition" that WomenArtistUpdates is looking for. So, if these sources don't seem adequate, I'll suggest a solution might be to redirect this Koehnline article to Fifth Estate (periodical) and put a sentence or two about Koehnline into the "1980s and 1990s" section, as an artistic contributor whose work was first published there in the early 1990s. Elspea756 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a redirect to the Fifth Estate article, per your suggestion. -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would NOT support redirecting a non-notable graphic artist into a poorly sourced, puffy article. There's enough information out there to bring Fifth Estate into encyclopedic value, see https://findingaids.lib.umich.edu/catalog/umich-scl-fifthestate and remove copyright violation in the lede (see https://www.bobdylan-comewritersandcritics.com/pages/mags_fichiers/fifthestate.htm), but don't add in non notable information about James Koehnline. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your directive. Best of luck with your updates to the Fifth Estate article. Elspea756 (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Created by a pre-AFC IP (216.39.144.162 (talk · contribs)) back on May 30, 2004. Of course, since WP/BLP standards have tightened up since then... --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've found another source, Semiotexte, v. 5, issue 2, from 1989, on pages 129-31, 175, 185, 191, 231, and 255 has about a half-page written description of Koehnline's work and biography, and then seven of his collages. Elspea756 (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a standard bio for using his illustrations in the journal, not significant coverage. czar 18:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It won't be independent coverage either, unless I am misunderstanding Elspea756's description. Artists write those bios themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing what sources we'd use to justify covering within the Fifth Estate article. Also not seeing which three sources discuss his work in particular depth. czar 18:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've found yet another source. Michael Kinsella's book, "Legend-Tripping Online: Supernatural Folklore and the Search for Ong's Hat" published by University Press of Mississippi, from 2011, names Koehnline as one of the four people who created Ong's Hat, and gives more biographical details of Koehnline. "the artist James Koehnline, who designed the cover of the original Incunabula: A Catalogue ... anarchist and surrealist collage artist ... his work appears within a number of CDs, books, and magazines that are part of the countercultural ... provided the illustration for the cover of Bey’s T.A.Z. and edited the book, Gone to Croatan ..." So, we now have at least three different biographies of Koehnline to use as sources: 1) "An Infinite Bag of Tricks," IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications ( Volume: 31, Issue: 2, March-April 2011) Page(s): 4 - 5, 2) Semiotexte, v. 5, issue 2, from 1989, and 3) "Legend-Tripping Online: Supernatural Folklore and the Search for Ong's Hat" University Press of Mississippi, 2011. And we could also use 4) Fifth Estate, with multiple details published from as early as 1990 (Winter issue 1990-91, Vol. 25, No. 2, has "Swamp Rats & Urban Rats Unite!" by George Bradford which is a review of Koehnline's collage-illustrated poetry) to as recent as 2007. These four sources should allow us to write a properly sourced short biographical article. Elspea756 (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considering the page and updates here in AfD, his work is definitely notable, though the article leaves a lot to be desired in its current revision. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessing all three sources aforementioned, I do not see how they meet the significant coverage criterion nevertheless constitute enough material to write a biography worthy of the subject.
    1. Legend-Tripping Online is a three-sentence mention that does not say more than that he was a collage artist who illustrated for Hakim Bey.
    2. Semiotexte is previously discussed above as being a standard artist bio, potentially self-authored, shown alongside his work in the journal. (Mind, too, that he is part of the Autonomedia collective that publishes Semiotexte.)
    3. The IEEE article is the only article that approaches Koehnline's work in any depth but sparsely and with little biographical detail.
Altogether it would seem impossible to write a detailed article based on this material, especially if these are the best sources available. A redirect to other articles, e.g., to cover as a sentence in Bey's or Autonomedia's articles, also seems untenable as undue weight. czar 02:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi Mohammed[edit]

Tobi Mohammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 13:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Appears PROMO, the awards also look non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Scream All Youth Awards, is a notable African Youth award organized by Scream Magazine, the award appears on multiple reliable source in Nigeria, Namibia and Ghana. With this sources, it is proven the award meets the WP:NAWARD criteria on notability of an award. Afí-afeti (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, as the subject is not notable for one event but meets the WP:ANYBIO for his contribution to the entertainment industry.--Afí-afeti (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fail WP:GNG can't find any awards, or significant achievement, that makes the topic pass WP:ANYBIO majority of the coverages the topic gets are not independent. Oloriebi 12:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This one isn’t even a “philanthropist” as well as having a job. Mccapra (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of the United States for 2022[edit]

Vehicle registration plates of the United States for 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicle registration plates of the United States for 2021, same reasoning.

Also nominated:

I've not included the even older ones to keep this somewhat manageable. But further such lists exist for every year from 1901 to 1999 as well... Fram (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge States don't change their plates every single year so I'm baffled why there need to be lists for every single year. But a collection of these designs is a reasonable topic to include, so collecting these by decade would be a better presentation. I see this was supported by several people in the previous AFD and the votes to delete were not an overwhelming majority. Reywas92Talk 13:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Each of the states have their own pages detailing the year-to year-changes, so having national year-by-year pages is overkill. The current ones are listed at Vehicle registration plates of the United States. No reason for these to be redirects, either. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WIA Dronebogus (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (albeit with some regret). The United States doesn't issue license plates (save for its own vehicles and foreign diplomats) so I don't see the value to Wikipedia of cataloging each year of the various state and territory plates which may or may not have changed from the previous year. Minnesota's plates, for example, have changed only slightly since the late 1970s. While I can see how the information is interesting, I don't see how it's encylopedic for Wikipedia. --Sable232 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vehicle registration plates of the United States. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (all the articles back to 1901) as per above.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect As per The person who loves reading and Rosguill, a redirect is the best use here. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What good is it to redirect? These pages aren't linked from anything except each other, they are not likely to be searched, and they do not have information on the site that is not already somewhere else, meaning there's not a good reason to WP:PRESERVE in my opinion. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Six of one half dozen of the other. Both results are basically removal of the content redirecting just preserves like two or three links. Honestly I'm fine with either outcome. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indiscriminate and lacking SIGCOV. I don't see how these are viable search terms either, so a redirect would not be appropriate. JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arto Nyberg[edit]

Arto Nyberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt the notability of the subject and through WP:BEFORE didn't find good RS to establish it. The main concern here is that this BLP is completely unreferenced, and the Finnish version of the page doesn't contribute much, too. However, I may miss something. MartinPict (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It's also a bit difficult to separate him from his TV show, which also frustrates searching as there's a lot of false positives along the lines of "So-and-so said something to Arty Nyberg" in Finnish. But still, there's plenty of coverage about him in all kinds of Finnish papers, even if a lot of it is interviews or profiles you'd expect about a "generic famous person". I'll look for more when I have the time from other stuff, but here's something to start with:
  • Large profile in Anna (subscription required; only shows a snippet by default): [33]
  • Profile/interview in Seiska: [34]
  • Profile/interview in ET: [35]
  • A thing in Seura: [36]
  • Profiles/interviews in the [Iltalehti]] tabloid: [37], [38], [39]
  • Some more in the Ilta-Sanomat tabloid: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] (there's more, but that's a representative sample)
Pretty much none of these are great in isolation, but the pure mass and sustained length of coverage gives me pause and I think I'm leaning towards a weak keep at the moment. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yleradio, I think is the best option. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented above and added by Eastman to the article. They're reliable enough, with some in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per my comment above: nothing individually earth shattering, but there's plenty -Ljleppan (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nayef Al-Rodhan[edit]

Nayef Al-Rodhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. The subject does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. The page is a lengthy promotion for the subject and the main contributors to the page (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Globjulia) have engaged in WP:REFSPAMming to promote the subject across Wikipedia. Thenightaway (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Did you check Scholar before nominating? he's well cited in both philosophy and neuroscience so he meets WP:PROF. He also meets WP:NAUTHOR for his book "Meta-Geopolitics of Outer Space" which appears to have several reviews. - car chasm (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are not significant citation counts given that Al-Rodhan has spammed his publications into the lead of a vast number of Wikipedia articles where they remained for more than a decade. For example, his most-cited work, "Definitions of globalization: A comprehensive overview and a proposed definition" is a self-published manuscript that he WP:REFSPAMmed into prominent places of Wikipedia articles, such as the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Globalization[49] where lazy academics found it and cited it for a definition of globalization. It's a bizarre version of WP:CITOGENESIS where the academic places his non-notable research prominently into Wikipedia articles, academics find it on Wikipedia and lazily cite it for basic terms, and the citations themselves become an indication that the subject is actually notable. As for the reviews of his book, I could only find one in Space Policy, which says "this is a somewhat curious book: it claims to look at space power in a new way, but doesn't clearly produce any new insights".[50] Thenightaway (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Kırklareli. Viable AtD when no sourcing has been found Star Mississippi 20:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kırklareli Jewish quarter[edit]

Kırklareli Jewish quarter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source is a forum. According to the tag, inadequate referencing has been a problem for almost 9 years. I wouldn't also have a separate article for a quarter of a small town, unless it had a significant amount of content and coverage. Aintabli (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article links to a book about the community. There's an article that includes recent coverage here[51], there will be other historical articles. There's historical population numbers in the 2008 Encyclopaedia Judaica[52]. Jahaza (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an academic book chapter in Turkish[53]. Jahaza (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza None of these sources are about the Jewish quarter. They are all about the Jewish population of Kırklareli in general. Even if we had sources specifically for the neighborhood (currently we do not), we had to consider whether it should have its own article per WP:NPLACE, which leaves the notability of unrecognized neighborhoods open for discussion. Aintabli (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a question of changing the name of the article, which is clearly about the Jewish community in the city. Jahaza (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A move would definitely be appropriate if this article is not deleted. Though, problems remain as the article largely went unnoticed for 14 years. It also doesn't appear to be the convention to have separate articles for non-distinct communities within a small settlement. Instead, expanding on the Jewish population on Kırklareli, a more-visible article, could be more beneficial until we reach the point a separate entry would allow for more expansion. Aintabli (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more reliable sources are added, cannot find anything that proves WP:GNG Karnataka (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus is problems can be solved by editing Star Mississippi 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization in India[edit]

Globalization in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is just one large WP:OR and WP:SYNTH essay. The content in this essay might be belong in various forms on articles such as History of India, Economic history of India, or Economy of India, but has no encyclopedic value as a standalone article. Thenightaway (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Economics, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim I agree that the article reads as an essay, with analysis rather than just reporting. For example One event that helped India immensely was when Netscape went public on 9 August 1995. And There is a food security crisis in India because a significant portion of the land has been designated to grow crops for biofuel. Crops like rice and wheat are often harvested in large quantities. However, the amount of crops that are used for biofuel is largely unregulated, with an inadequate amount going to the poor and needy. However, there is also much useful and interesting referenced material. I recommend that, if the article is kept, it be brutally edited to remove every paragraph or sentence that does not have an adequate citation (noting that sometimes the citation for a sentence comes with the sentence before, and that sometimes the justifying citation is to another Wikipedia page, of course.) This will give a much smaller and focussed article. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The topic is notable but the content is a mess. Could be a WP:TNT job? Aszx5000 (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the topic is clearly notable. The text needs work but it's not obviously in WP:TNT territory as it's intelligible and for the most part appropriately cited. Some experienced copy-editing would help. I think this is a KEEP as far as AfD is concerned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. I'd consider a merge to Economy of India, but then it would need to be WP:SIZESPLIT back out anyway, and this exists as a valid child article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/Merge This is an awful lot of synthesis, attributing a development and social concepts to globalization without narrowing this admittedly broad concept into a cohesive article. The Payments section is a duplicate of Economy_of_India#Balance_of_payments, the Investments section duplicates Economy_of_India#Foreign_direct_investment, the Remittances section duplicates Economy_of_India#Remittances. The Women section is vague, and although this can be tied to international companies I don't think increased access to education is strong thesis here. The Education section is likewise vague without direct discussion of globalization. I'm baffled what this Health section is doing here. The Historical Context section is similarly vague, where "India" could be replaced with the name of any other country. Trimming what isn't relevant or what is duplicative leaves little unique or useful content, so a redirect to Economy of India may be appropriate – the noted sections should not just be removed from the main article. Something being conceived as notable doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article. Reywas92Talk 21:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji[edit]

Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another "entrepreneur" article whose sources are mostly paid promotional pieces. Does not meet WP:IS. Nswix (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Nswix (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Beyond sharing advice on how to succeed [54], it's all promotional fluff. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a guy with a job doesn’t make you notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No evidence articles are paid promotional pieces as asserted by nominator. The florid tone is typical Nigerian journalism style. These are national Nigerian newspapers cited The Guardian (Nigeria), Vanguard (Nigeria), The Sun (Nigeria), This Day, The Nation (Nigeria). --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's arguing that it's not Nigerian. Just that large newspapers in Nigeria have begun selling fluff pieces.
    Nswix (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence do you have that these articles are paid journalism? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With their promotional tone and lack of substance, I just dont buy that it can't be promotional, simply because it's widely-published. There of tons of larger publications that are blacklisted. Nswix (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Current refs are non-independent (interviews and other reports of what he said, versus coverage of him), cover Ayhomes, or are all of the above and PROMO. Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to flout broadcasting rules on paid advertising. Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”. Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”. "Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt. “The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”. JoelleJay (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay thanks for this! I'm disappointed to say the least since I have cited these newspapers in other AfDs. It remains true that the Nigerian newspaper style tends to the colorful and florid even when reporting the weather. Nevertheless, I think you are probably right about this article and some others now being discussed for deletion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nigeria. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's probably worth someone starting an RfC somewhere regarding reliable and non-reliable Nigerian news sources. This comes up in multiple AfDs and it would save everybody time to know what's what. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Folasade Omotoyinbo[edit]

Folasade Omotoyinbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "social media entrepreneur" article whose sources are mostly paid. The sources about the subject are promotional pieces. Does not meet WP:IS. Nswix (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning to delete based on this comment by User:JoelleJay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji. It cites a journalism expert discussing rampant Nigerian journalism corruption. (That said, the Nigerian reporting style during my brief time there was florid even when reporting stuff like the weather.) --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I sampled 10 of the sources and all of them were non-independent Q&A interviews, non-independent coverage of announcements from her ("Omotoyinbo said...", "according to Omotoyinbo", etc.), clearly promotional non-independent pieces (especially from orgs she is affiliated with, like City People), or NCORP-failing coverage of her business. Does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigerian papers use a different writing style to the Western style you are probably familiar with. The tone may seem promotional, but it would be way more blatant if it actually was. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, note that several participants were actively canvassed to this and similar deletion discussions. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what that has to do with me? I wasn't canvassed. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the reasons for a promotional style, the current refs still lack independent SIGCOV of her as they are almost all just repeating things she said. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I got canvassed to some Nigerian politicians page, and didnt vote, cause I dont know enough about politics. Nswix (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Straight A's[edit]

Straight A's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it just barely makes it to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You have also this and this for example. The film was internationally distributed (with 2 different titles in Brazilian and European Portuguese, fwiw). Production has attracted some attention; notable cast and director.— MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 15:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets our notability guideline. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_15

Leave a Reply